|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
April 26th, 2005, 12:04 PM | #16 | |
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Stockton, UT
Posts: 5,648
|
Quote:
Don't work on the native m2t files directly unless you're willing to suffer some loss. Of course, if it's just a single pass, the m2t files hold up fairly well, but the 4:2:2 YUV is a much better format for compositing, color correction, etc. But....Beware the MUCH larger file sizes. Be SURE that you have enough storage space.
__________________
Douglas Spotted Eagle/Spot Author, producer, composer Certified Sony Vegas Trainer http://www.vasst.com |
|
April 26th, 2005, 12:56 PM | #17 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 444
|
Quote:
|
|
April 26th, 2005, 02:25 PM | #18 | |
Barry Wan Kenobi
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 3,863
|
Quote:
There's nothing similar about the ways that are being implemented. With the in-camera solutions you're talking about a device that is progressively-scanning one frame every 1/24 of a second. With the post solutions, they're taking 60 fields and attempting to simulate the look of progressive capture. What is similar is the overall feeling of the footage once you're done. And the post algorithms can be very good -- film transfer houses have been doing this for decades, so they've gotten quite good at it, and all reports are that the GearShift program, and Vegas' internal processing, do a great job of it. |
|
| ||||||
|
|